The Supreme Court of India, in K.P. Tamilmaran v. State By Deputy Superintendent of Police (2025), delivered a landmark judgment on honour killings and clarified the evidentiary value of hostile and related witnesses. The case arose from the brutal murder of a young inter-caste couple, Murugesan and Kannagi, in Tamil Nadu in 2003.
The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of several accused while strongly denouncing caste-based violence and honour killings, and addressed systemic lapses by law enforcement authorities.
Case Title: K.P. Tamilmaran v. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police & Connected Appeals
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 576
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Date of Judgment: 28 April 2025
Background and Facts
A. The Victims and Their Marriage
Murugesan, a Dalit youth with a degree in chemical engineering, and Kannagi, a woman from the dominant Vanniyar caste, were both from Pudukoorapettai village in Cuddalore district, Tamil Nadu. Despite knowing the societal consequences, they married secretly on 5 May 2003 and registered the marriage officially. However, Kannagi’s family did not accept their union, especially her father (A-1 Duraisamy) and brother (A-2 Maruthupandiyan).
B. The Crime
On 7 July 2003, Murugesan was lured back to the village under the pretext that he owed money to A-2. He was brutally beaten by A-1 to A-13 in full public view. Under torture, he revealed Kannagi’s location. Both were later captured, taken to a cashew grove, and poisoned using a toxic insecticide (Nuvacron). Kannagi died on the spot; Murugesan was also killed similarly. Their bodies were then secretly cremated.
Trial Court and High Court Proceedings
A. Trial Court (2021)
Fifteen individuals, including two police officers (A-14 and A-15), were prosecuted. Thirteen were convicted, with A-2 sentenced to death and others to life imprisonment. A-14 and A-15 were convicted under the provisions of the IPC (Currently BNS) and SC/ST Act. Two accused were acquitted.
B. High Court (2022)
The Madras High Court altered the sentence of A-2 from death to life imprisonment. A-14’s sentence was reduced from life to two years, acquitting him of some charges. A-3 and A-13 were acquitted. Remaining convictions and sentences were upheld.
Supreme Court Proceedings and Questions
The eleven convicted appellants challenged the High Court’s judgment before the Supreme Court. The key issues included:
- Credibility of hostile and related witnesses.
- Role and responsibility of police officers (A-14 and A-15).
- Impact of procedural delay and flawed investigation.
- The legality of the trial court summoning a new key witness (PW-49) under Section 311 CrPC.
Legal Findings and Observations
A. Honour Killing and Caste Prejudice
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, delivering the judgment, condemned the murders as a gruesome act of caste-based honour killing. The Court reaffirmed that the caste system is deeply entrenched and continues to fuel heinous crimes.
The murder of the couple was not only unlawful but also an affront to constitutional values of equality, dignity, and liberty.
B. Role of the Police and Delay in Justice
The Court expressed strong disapproval of the conduct of A-14 and A-15. They not only failed to register an FIR despite being informed, but also actively suppressed the crime. The FIR was registered nine days later due to public outrage and media pressure.
The investigation was first handled by the local police, who filed a manipulated chargesheet naming even Dalit witnesses as accused. On the family’s plea, the Madras High Court handed over the probe to the CBI, which charged 15 individuals.
The trial was delayed for over 18 years due to repeated adjournments and dilatory tactics by the accused. The Supreme Court acknowledged that such delay often causes witness intimidation, memory loss, and witnesses turning hostile.
C. Credibility of Hostile and Related Witnesses
A central legal issue was the status of hostile witnesses. The Court thoroughly analysed Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It clarified:
- Hostile witnesses are not automatically unreliable.
- Courts must assess the credibility of each witness, even if declared hostile.
- Evidence of hostile witnesses can still be used if corroborated.
- The term “hostile witness” is not defined under Indian law and is not a bar to admissibility.
The testimonies of PW-1 (father), PW-2 and PW-3 (brothers), PW-15 (sister), and especially PW-49 (stepmother and eyewitness) were held to be credible and corroborative. The Court held that PW-49’s account of the poisoning was vital despite her being a late addition as a prosecution witness.
D. Admissibility of Related Witnesses
The Court reiterated that related witnesses are “natural witnesses” and their testimony cannot be discarded solely due to their relationship with the deceased. Their testimony must be cautiously examined but not dismissed outright.
Citing precedents including Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P. (2021) and State of A.P. v. S. Rayappa (2006), the Court held that PW-49’s testimony was honest and credible.
Reaffirmation of Judicial Discretion
The Court emphasised the wide discretionary powers under:
- Section 311 CrPC (Now Section 348 of BNSS) – to summon, recall, or re-examine any witness at any stage.
- Section 165 of the Evidence Act (now Section 168 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) – empowering judges to ask any question, at any time, to elicit the truth.
In this case, PW-49 was not initially listed in the chargesheet. She was brought in as a prosecution witness midway through the trial under Section 311 CrPC (Now Section 348 of BNSS). The Court held that this was lawful, necessary, and pivotal in ensuring justice.
Final Verdict
- Convictions and life imprisonment sentences for A-1, A-2, and others were upheld.
- The Court found the evidence against them overwhelming and legally sufficient.
- The reduced sentence of two years for A-14 was not interfered with.
- The role of A-15 (police officer) in delaying justice was also confirmed as grave misconduct.
The judgment served as a strong precedent for:
- Combatting honour killings.
- Addressing procedural lapses in criminal investigations.
- Clarifying evidentiary standards relating to hostile and related witnesses.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s verdict in K.P. Tamilmaran v. State By Deputy Superintendent of Police is a comprehensive reaffirmation of the principles of justice, constitutional morality, and judicial duty. It reiterates the importance of valuing witness testimony holistically and acknowledges the practical challenges of witness protection and delayed justice.
The case is a chilling reminder of how caste, when weaponised under the garb of honour, can destroy young lives. It also stands as a legal milestone in expanding the understanding of evidentiary value and the responsibility of courts to safeguard truth even in the face of hostility, delay, or manipulation.
